Well here we go again...

Another federal election has been called in Canada. This is our fourth election in eight years and, frankly, I'm sick of all the in-fighting. Not one Canadian that I've talked to wants to go the polls again to vote for the same dickheads again.

What this country needs is stability, but the politicians are all too busy with their own agendas to realize that. I wouldn't mind so much if there was just one person that I had the tiniest bit of faith in, but there isn't. For the first time in my life, it's tempting to not vote.

Everyone is so paranoid that they're a tax and spend party and I say yeah and so what. The spend party will spend on services - maybe too many - but they do spend it on the middle and lower class - which is 95% of the population.

They have NEVER been the ruling party in Canada - and when they were the major minority party in Canada they were responsible for giving Canada a pension plan, Employment insurance, and free medical and most of the other safety nets that no one complains about when they need it - and most need it at some point.

Granted lefty parties have rightful arguments against when it comes to the leaky bucket. A lot of the taxes leak out on stupid pet projects - but given that there are only really three parties that could win - and the Liberals have proven over and over to be completely corrupt and tell both the left and the right wingers what they want to hear - then it leaves Harper and his merry band of crooks and the "earth is only 6000 year old nutters" and the NDP who might be corrupt as well but since they've NEVER been in power why not give them 4 years to see what they can do. Although at least in general Harper's government does have a point of view and generally they follow it through. So does the NDP. The Liberals just play both sides to get the most votes. They're the sleaziest party IMO in that regard.

If they stink then go back to voting for your main party. Plus, they know that if they get in it would be by the skin of their teeth - and if they screw up they'll never get in again. So that's where my vote is going.

Frankly the NDP is a party that follows more the French system - the Conservatives follow the American system - I'll take France and power to the people and governments afraid of the people over the American system where the people are terrified of their government and big corporation has complete control over almost everything. Fortunately, when Americans finally figure this out and have a little French Revolution of their own against the "rich" they at least have lots and lots and lots and lots of GUNS. No guillotines needed.

Frankly the NDP actually gives a damn about middle class and poor wages, health education, global warming, and sure they may not be in the friendliest to big business - but so what! I don't want big business running the country - I want the people to run the damn country and not Wal-Mart.

You make some good points RGA. I know I won't be voting Liberal...I still haven't forgotten or forgiven them for the Sponsorship Scandal. But voting NDP? I don't know if I can do it. I may have to take a closer look at their campaign platform though.

I like Layton. As far as the leaders go, he's probably the one that I trust the most, but I have trouble subscribing to the Union philosophy. Although I don't like or trust Harper, he hasn't really done anything to offend me while in power. Well, from a fiscal standpoint that is. I can't subscribe to some of their issues regarding human rights. Unfortunately, you have to take the whole package when you vote for a party.

Plus, an NDP government would most likely mean another minority Gov't and I can't see the Liberals or the Conservatives giving up power to the NDP for very long. So we're back in the same boat in another year or two.

Why can't we wipe the whole slate clean and just start over with new parties and new leaders all around?

You make some good points RGA. I know I won't be voting Liberal...I still haven't forgotten or forgiven them for the Sponsorship Scandal. But voting NDP? I don't know if I can do it. I may have to take a closer look at their campaign platform though.

I like Layton. As far as the leaders go, he's probably the one that I trust the most, but I have trouble subscribing to the Union philosophy. Although I don't like or trust Harper, he hasn't really done anything to offend me while in power. Well, from a fiscal standpoint that is. I can't subscribe to some of their issues regarding human rights. Unfortunately, you have to take the whole package when you vote for a party.

Plus, an NDP government would most likely mean another minority Gov't and I can't see the Liberals or the Conservatives giving up power to the NDP for very long. So we're back in the same boat in another year or two.

Why can't we wipe the whole slate clean and just start over with new parties and new leaders all around?

I'm going to hold my nose and vote Liberal -- there's not way I'm going to vote for the right-wing Conservatives, and the NDP doesn't have the chance of of fart in a windstorm in our riding.

Speaking of the "Sponsorship Scandal", it was unforgivable of course, but in fact only a tiny group of Liberals in Quebec were involved in the a shenanigans that precipitated it. Meanwhile the Conservative government is the first in the history of any British Commonwealth country to be accused of Contempt of Parliament -- even with out regard for it's extreme right-wing policies, that's sufficient reason to kick out Harper and crew. It's laughable to think the he promised "more open and transparent government" when you consider the Harper government's actual record of secrecy and deception.

You make some good points RGA. I know I won't be voting Liberal...I still haven't forgotten or forgiven them for the Sponsorship Scandal. But voting NDP? I don't know if I can do it. I may have to take a closer look at their campaign platform though.

I like Layton. As far as the leaders go, he's probably the one that I trust the most, but I have trouble subscribing to the Union philosophy. Although I don't like or trust Harper, he hasn't really done anything to offend me while in power. Well, from a fiscal standpoint that is. I can't subscribe to some of their issues regarding human rights. Unfortunately, you have to take the whole package when you vote for a party.

Plus, an NDP government would most likely mean another minority Gov't and I can't see the Liberals or the Conservatives giving up power to the NDP for very long. So we're back in the same boat in another year or two.

Why can't we wipe the whole slate clean and just start over with new parties and new leaders all around?

I understand to a degree what you're saying but this country is in debt HUGE debt because of Pierre Trudeau and the people got ZILCH from his spending - I liked the bravado but he really did ruin the economy of this nation for a very long time. And the Liberals have proven over and over since that clown to be no better in the waste money on dumb things and screwing over the people.

The conservatives anyway you slice it is still a Mulroney group. Although there is that Harper - let's sneak in the Fox Network on Tax dollars quasi nut.

I am a lefty in the sense that I have zero problems with Unions - companies get the unions they deserve (and by companies I also include governments). but if I didn't vote NDP I would probably vote Conservative because at least Harper tends to do what he says - or tries to and generally try to stay on platform - even if I think their platform is wrong I can respect the guy for that. Ignatiaf reminds me of Count Dracula - sorry I just can't get past the guy's lack of ethics - I can see it a mile off. So you have a choice between Dracula and a used car salesman (Harper).

I worked for 10 years in a non union Steel Foundry Called ESCO (Electric Steel Co). So I get the private sector non union shop philosophy and now I am a teacher where I am forced to be in a union whether I want to be in one or not. And I am seeing it from both sides. My dad, who was not a big fan of unions and definitely conservative, actually formed a union in a workplace once. Unions themselves in theory are terrific and often levels the playing field. Unions that do work also raise the salaries at ALL competing operations.

Take ESCO - this was and may still be the only foundry in British Columbia maybe the country that is not a union shop. And the reason they're not a union shop is because they looked at the wages offered by all the union foundries - and paid the employees considerably more, followed seniority based practices with regards to layoffs and therefore treated people so well that there was no need to form a union. That's the thing, the only way ESCO employees were paid so well and treated so well was because Unions at other shops fought so hard to get their level of pay to something acceptable and that scares competitors like ESCO into doing the right thing before they're forced to. One reason Wal-Mart has largely avoided the problem in B.C. with any Union wrangling is that they pay a full $2 an hour more than every other similar job in the malls they're attached to. Again that is only done out of a fear of unions and you can only be afraid of unions if there are unions out there to be afraid of.

The problem in the teaching field as I see it is not so much the union - although I don't like the idea of never being able to get rid of lousy teachers due to seniority (a big gripe), or hiring less qualified teachers of a given subject simply because they have more years in as a teacher (bigger gripe). So there is a lot I dislike about the protectionism involved. But take a normal job. You work for a year and you have an evaluation and you generally get a raise - or you can ask for one anytime you feel you deserve one. At Esco I got the cost of living increase which was usually 3-4% plus a 8-20% raise plus quarterly company bonuses based on how well the company did.

As a teacher - I may do a great job over the course of a year put in 14 hour days and then my boss comes in and says well sorry but you get 0-0-0 for the next three years. So not only do I not get a raise - I don't even get a cost of living increase? And although I am in a union it is illegal for me to go on strike. WTF? Sorry but that's really tough to take. The buying power of teachers in BC has dropped over 50% since 1985. BC is one of the most expensive provinces (the most in fact) to live and Teachers currently rank third lowest in the country. 30% behind Alberta and this is about as Right Wing as provinces get.

And you know the sick thing is - I actually STILL don't have a problem with what teachers make. It's not like we go into it for the money but cost of living increase should be obvious - of cost of living goes up 3% and we get zero then all the hard work we did resulted in a 3% pay cut. Meanwhile the Gordon Campbell government gives himself and his government a 15% pay increase! Sometimes it's not about the money it's about the principle of the thing.

No question that Unions are problematic in a lot of ways. But the alternative would be worse. There is a very good reason why we have unions and that is to protect the people from government and the rich. Unions are why we have 8 hour days, a minimum wage, holidays with pay, sick leave, work safety standards, 5 day work weeks, maternity leave and paternity leave, and "fair hiring" practices as well as fair firing practices. It's funny that so many of us get pissed off at unions but forget that most of the things that workers do in fact have (union shop or not) is in the fabric of the workforce based on the backs of people who fought for those things as part of a union.

Some unions like the Ontario Teachers union are ridiculously powerful and extremely wealthy. Still it is a wealth and a power that resides with the workforce and I prefer that power distributed over such a body (with elected in leaders) than say a corporation or a single business owner.

France is a country that has a government afraid of the people - the people are in a sense one giant union and they have a history of beheading rulers that piss them off. IMO Canada and the US need that kind of power - which is why the governments here want to crush unions as fast as they possibly can - they don't want the people to have any power whatsoever they want government to have all the power which really means big oil, big pharma, big tobacco, and big corp

Power to the people - it's not just a slogan - without it the sociopaths and psychopaths run the world - arguably we're already well down that path - so any party that has any sympathy or any notion that a Union is a good idea is the only party that should be voted for - because if they're afraid of unions and want to crush them then they are saying they want to be monarchs and have absolute power. And that is why it is much better to be a teacher in Ontario than being a teacher in BC. And if you were a teacher you would feel the same way. Even though I do hate some of the union protectionism and the fact that lazy useless bums are protected by unions when they should be held more accountable like private sector - nothing is perfect. Goes back the leaky bucket analogy.

I'm ready to vote. I think the current government should be ashamed of the closed-door, control-freak policies it's adopted after promising transparency. I think economically, the Conservatives have made huge mistakes and have been reacting to popular sentiment on complicated issues when they should be listening to experts.

The GST cut was probably the most stupid tax cut in the history of Canadian tax cuts. I'm pissed off they promised we wouldn't go into deficit when they knew the world economy collapsed, only to see them run bigger deficits than any Canadian government in history. And most of that stimulus money didn't go to people who needed it, it went to people who were getting by just fine but could be persuaded to vote Conservative with a few goodies tossed their way.

I hate seeing my tax dollars used to print Conservative ads and make crappy TV commercials to support a political party's agenda.

I hate the utter contempt Harper has shown for Canadian democracy and his minority position - proroguing parliament twice to escape defeat like a coward. This is f'n embarrassing.

...and don't get me started on the damn Liberals.

I'd vote for a third party if there was a half-way intelligent platform, unfortunately I don't believe that the NDP would actually go through with their campaign promises if they were elected. And that's the big secret in that camp - they can appeal to the little guy with pledges and principles that they never, ever, ever have to implement. Instead they use their political power to influence minority governments (rather well, I admit) very small steps towards some of their campaign positions. But they campaign for runner-up, never for #1.

I don't expect the new government will look much different but I hope this slap on the wrist smartens the Conservatives the hell up. If Harper can't win a majority for the 3rd time maybe they'll put someone a little less of a prick in charge to run the party...

As far as voting goes, I'm very conflicted because our MP is a good man, a Minister and has done well for the region. It's just too bad his boss is a dick.

....
The conservatives anyway you slice it is still a Mulroney group. Although there is that Harper - let's sneak in the Fox Network on Tax dollars quasi nut.

I am a lefty in the sense that I have zero problems with Unions - companies get the unions they deserve (and by companies I also include governments). ...

I worked for 10 years in a non union Steel Foundry Called ESCO (Electric Steel Co). So I get the private sector non union shop philosophy and now I am a teacher where I am forced to be in a union whether I want to be in one or not. And I am seeing it from both sides. My dad, who was not a big fan of unions and definitely conservative, actually formed a union in a workplace once. Unions themselves in theory are terrific and often levels the playing field. Unions that do work also raise the salaries at ALL competing operations.
...

No question that Unions are problematic in a lot of ways. But the alternative would be worse. There is a very good reason why we have unions and that is to protect the people from government and the rich. Unions are why we have 8 hour days, a minimum wage, holidays with pay, sick leave, work safety standards, 5 day work weeks, maternity leave and paternity leave, and "fair hiring" practices as well as fair firing practices. It's funny that so many of us get pissed off at unions but forget that most of the things that workers do in fact have (union shop or not) is in the fabric of the workforce based on the backs of people who fought for those things as part of a union.

Some unions like the Ontario Teachers union are ridiculously powerful and extremely wealthy. Still it is a wealth and a power that resides with the workforce and I prefer that power distributed over such a body (with elected in leaders) than say a corporation or a single business owner.
....

On balance I continue to support the union movement and I certainly agree that without union preasure both union and non-union workers wouldn't enjoy the protections they have today. On the other hand unions today are tending to distort the employment market today and, with the status quo that distortion would increase.

Global competition is working strongly against North American workers, (I included all salaried as well as hourly wage earners). Countries, beginning with China and India not to mention Mexico, etc., not only have lower wages but all so fewer protections of all sorts for workers. N.B. Given capitalism, it is in the nature of things that capital will flow to where cost of production is lowest; effectively this means countries with the lowest wages and fewest regulations of all sorts. As the rich see it, what's to be done to is to reduce the North American worker to the condition of workers in (what we used to call) the Third World; they are really uninterested in preserving any sort of advantages or protections for workers here.

A big factor is the concentration of unions in the public sector. The governor of Wisconson isn't entirely off-base insisting the public sector unions have become a priviledged class. A bunch of people with higher wages, better benefits, earlier retirement ages, and more secure tenure than private sector workers. For all of us, this has the disadvantage of making vital government services relatively more costly, and, at the same time, making governments appear inefficient in the public eye, in turn fueling demands for "smaller government" and lower taxes.

What needs to be done is for governments (as well as private companies) to bargain harder with unions. Indeed in the Wisconson case, the State was able to get unions to agree to cuts that were enough to satisfy the budget goals. However the right-wing governor sees that going further to break the unions in his state will serve the agenda of the rich as stated above. He shouldn't be allow to do that, nor should we in Canada permit it to happen here -- I strongly suspect that Harper is up for that, though. That's the character of the man and his backers and cronies.

I'm ready to vote. I think the current government should be ashamed of the closed-door, control-freak policies it's adopted after promising transparency. I think economically, the Conservatives have made huge mistakes and have been reacting to popular sentiment on complicated issues when they should be listening to experts.

...

The Conservative Party is now ruled by anarcho-capitalist ideologues. The trend here has been identical to the relentless rightward drift of the Republican Party State-side.

Its more centrist predecessor was called the Progressive Conservative Party, but things went bad (i.e. worse) with the infusion of right-wingers and social conservatives from the Alliance. Recall that the Alliance was composed of populist Reform Party members -- who actually believed in government transparency -- and the hard-right wing of the PCP whose convert agenda was (and is) exclusively to promote the interests of the rich. The hard-right nowadays rule in the Conservative Party (as in does in the Republican) by pandering to the fears, prejudices, naivety of social conservatives and those nostaligic for a past that never really was.

Well and this is the problem with capitalism - the companies go to third world countries to get cheaper labor to increase profit. But in turn those companies end up with far less sales because there are far less people in the west making any money - so they can't afford the big ticket items and they pay people in the third world so little they have no hope of buying the product. It's a matter of time when this system will crush these companies but for the next while they'll make a killing. I vaguely remember Henry Ford fixing his problem when he ran out of rich people to sell to. He raised his workers salaries/and or lowered prices so that he could actually sell his cars.

This is now on a global level but the West still have enough numbers to instill governmental change and force companies into several things: A protectionist system of sorts

1) if you sell products to people in Canada or the United States 90% of the product must be built by the workforce in Canada or the U.S, Europe etc. Only 10% can be made with offshore cheap labour.

2) with one in place that means the Shirt may cost 3 times as much and must be sold for 3 times as much. But so what? Companies don't need to be making 5 billion in profits at the expense of the entire global economy. A fundamental change needs to be made at the expense of corporation - not at the expense of the population. This is why out of control Capitalism is a horrible system and even ethical capitalists probably have a notion that there needs to be some sort of stop to this lunacy.

If this or something smarter isn't done soon then the workforce will be making what Asian workers are making and there will be no middle class. Wenzhou, China is the model of pure capitalism - go there for a week and see for yourself - that is what the US will turn into within 20 years if big corporate has their way. Michigan already looks well on its way to dumpville if it isn't already.

I agree the NDP will not get in but then everyone always says this - I'd like to vote for them but they have no shot so I will vote for the usual - but to me that never makes sense. If the maybe million people out there who say this actually did vote for them instead of choosing the lesser of two evils - they might actually make serious inroads. They gained heavily in seats over the last several elections to the point where they actually have some sort of voice.

Granted they could be just as bad - maybe worse - but my contention is that they've never been in and so they have never actually "proven" to be an unmitigated disaster. I say let's see them screw it up before we just assume that they will. And people are so worried about the handling of money but it's not like the two experienced and "supposedly" money smart parties have done even a remotely good job. I just don't see the NDP being any worse at it - and at least we might get some services or they wont get eroded as quickly.

I do wonder what it is about the Left party that scares people so much about voting for them. I can see Americans being scared because they're used to low taxes but in Canada we're taxed so high anyway what's another couple of percent. LOL

And interestingly looking at Jack's platform (I know propaganda): he has two things listed as main goals in order

Making life more affordable

New Democrats will reduce the cost of everyday essentials like home heating. And we’ll ensure that every family takes home more of every paycheque.

Rewarding job creators

Under Stephen Harper, your tax dollars went to companies shipping Canadian jobs overseas. New Democrats will target investment to small businesses and companies actually creating jobs right here at home.

Of course these people never tell you how they will do these things and what they're going to cut in order to pull it off but that's true of them all.

Anyway I am sick of these elections but I do like a minority government - it forces all the sides to meet somewhere in the middle - a give and take. Unfortunately, Ignatief is just about making himself king of the land and so I wish they would get someone better.

This country really does need a magnetic persona in charge of a party. If the NDP had an electrifying and I hate to say but good looking young well spoken Obama type they would gain a huge advantage. Because policies aside A LOT of people vote on the individual because they know the platforms will likely not be followed as stated. Granted we did have boring old geezers no one could understand (Cretan) but that's because the opposition were made up of equally boring old sods.

1) if you sell products to people in Canada or the United States 90% of the product must be built by the workforce in Canada or the U.S, Europe etc. Only 10% can be made with offshore cheap labour.

2) with one in place that means the Shirt may cost 3 times as much and must be sold for 3 times as much. But so what? Companies don't need to be making 5 billion in profits at the expense of the entire global economy. A fundamental change needs to be made at the expense of corporation - not at the expense of the population. This is why out of control Capitalism is a horrible system and even ethical capitalists probably have a notion that there needs to be some sort of stop to this lunacy.

The problem with this ideology is simple supply and demand. If a shirt costs three times more to make and, therefore, three times more to buy, who's going to buy it? You would have to raise wages to compensate. In the end, you're in the exact same position.

It's nice to say that manufacturing should be kept in Canada to give Canadians jobs, and I agree in theory, but in practicality I'm not convinced that this works economically. Until the cheap labour countries force foreign industry to pay fair wages, offshore manufacturing will continue to be a fact of life. Having said that, I always try to buy fair-trade products whenever I can.

If this or something smarter isn't done soon then the workforce will be making what Asian workers are making and there will be no middle class.

I think that in the long-term the opposite will actually happen. Asian (and other) workers will demand fair wages. As you pointed out using Ford as an example, it in the interest of manufacturers to do this in order to open up their market so that the people making the products can afford to buy the products. The standard of living in these countries needs to be improved.

I agree the NDP will not get in but then everyone always says this - I'd like to vote for them but they have no shot so I will vote for the usual - but to me that never makes sense. If the maybe million people out there who say this actually did vote for them instead of choosing the lesser of two evils - they might actually make serious inroads. They gained heavily in seats over the last several elections to the point where they actually have some sort of voice.

Granted they could be just as bad - maybe worse - but my contention is that they've never been in and so they have never actually "proven" to be an unmitigated disaster. I say let's see them screw it up before we just assume that they will. And people are so worried about the handling of money but it's not like the two experienced and "supposedly" money smart parties have done even a remotely good job. I just don't see the NDP being any worse at it - and at least we might get some services or they wont get eroded as quickly.

In 1990 Ontario voted in their first and only NDP Government, headed by Bob Rae. It was a protest vote to get rid of David Peterson and his Liberal government. The joke was that NDP stood for No David Peterson. Well, if we thought the Liberals weren't doing a good job, the NDP just dug the hole deeper. In 1995 we tried the third route, a Conservative gov't headed by Mike Harris. Harris made a lot of cuts and decisions that were very unpopular and controversial, but he inherited such a deficit that he really had little choice but to make cuts that would hurt but would save a lot of money. And he was right, the province was in a better financial position at the end of his term.

My fear is that Canadians vote in the NDP as a protest vote at a time when the country needs to think about strengthening the economy and reducing the deficit. I would hate to see the NDP come in and start spending money because somewhere down the road someone will have come in and start filling in the monetary hole that the NDP will dig. I can see giving the NDP a chance when the country is thriving and there is money to spend, but this is not the time IMO.

And interestingly looking at Jack's platform (I know propaganda): he has two things listed as main goals in order

[B]Making life more affordable

New Democrats will reduce the cost of everyday essentials like home heating. And we’ll ensure that every family takes home more of every paycheque.

Rewarding job creators

While I like the platform, the big looming question is "how are you going to pay for this?".

...
In 1990 Ontario voted in their first and only NDP Government, headed by Bob Rae. It was a protest vote to get rid of David Peterson and his Liberal government. The joke was that NDP stood for No David Peterson. Well, if we thought the Liberals weren't doing a good job, the NDP just dug the hole deeper. In 1995 we tried the third route, a Conservative gov't headed by Mike Harris. Harris made a lot of cuts and decisions that were very unpopular and controversial, but he inherited such a deficit that he really had little choice but to make cuts that would hurt but would save a lot of money. And he was right, the province was in a better financial position at the end of his term.

My fear is that Canadians vote in the NDP as a protest vote at a time when the country needs to think about strengthening the economy and reducing the deficit. I would hate to see the NDP come in and start spending money because somewhere down the road someone will have come in and start filling in the monetary hole that the NDP will dig. I can see giving the NDP a chance when the country is thriving and there is money to spend, but this is not the time IMO.

While I like the platform, the big looming question is "how are you going to pay for this?".

On the subject of the NDP, it is well worth pointing out that the party has formed many provincial governments and has not proven the "socialist menace" that many expect. (Parties tend to the centre when governing.) I think fondly of the Roy Romano government in Saskatchewan when I lived their: sensible, equitable governance and a balanced budget to boot.

IMO, it wasn't Bob Rae's big deficit that lost him the election but -- and this is really ironic -- that he antagonized organized labour by asking them to take pay cuts. At least he asked them to share the pain while they kept their jobs. So they vote for Mike Harris: by way of showing his appreciation, he simply fired them.

It really p!sses me off to hear a Conservative (or Republican) talking about "fiscal responsibility". Every time Conservatives (or Republicans) has been in power the nation as either (1) gradually slipped into deficit, or (2) stampeded headlong into deficit. Oh, the hypocrisy; oh, the gullibility of voters to have believed them.

"The Coalition said no ... "

Harper in a speech aired on CBC this morning: "The Coalition said no ... {to this that, and about 100 other things}". This is minor example of Harper's disingenuousness. Basically the putative Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebois Coalition never said "no" to anything; their discussion never got that far into details before Harper prorogued Parliament.

But of course its Harper's plan to portray a coalition as the only alternative to a Conservative majority. In the first place that isn't true. But beyond the truth, the Conservative electioners have determined that "coalition" is a scare word for many voters who are ignorant of what it really means and the fact the coalition governments have function in many democracies worldwide.

I'm one of the people who think that coalition is a bad word...not a scary word...but a bad word. IMO a coalition is not democratic. The people vote for who they want to run the country. When there is a minority gov't and a coalition takes over, this is not how the country voted for the gov't to be run (yes, it can be argued that collectively the country voted for the coalition members, but that's not the same thing IMO as a coalition is not a party and not what was voted for). I don't think that a coalition respects the democratic voting system.

I'm not a fan of the Liberal Party at the moment. But if they were to win the election I would respect the vote and expect that the party that I voted for would do the same.

I agree that Harper should have found an alternative to proroguing Parliament. But I also think that he was backed into a corner and, personally, I would have rather had him do that then let the coalition happen. Not because I voted Conservative, but because I respect the democratic system and I don't believe that coalitions have any place in that system.

And, frankly, if the Liberals did win a minority gov't this time around, I wouldn't put it past Harper to do the exact same thing (front a coalition). At this point I don't think that any of the leaders have the country's best interests at heart. They are all posturing for their own agendas.

Elizabeth May had a great line in her speech yesterday..."so many elections, so little democracy".

I'm one of the people who think that coalition is a bad word...not a scary word...but a bad word. IMO a coalition is not democratic. The people vote for who they want to run the country. When there is a minority gov't and a coalition takes over, this is not how the country voted for the gov't to be run (yes, it can be argued that collectively the country voted for the coalition members, but that's not the same thing IMO as a coalition is not a party and not what was voted for). I don't think that a coalition respects the democratic voting system.

I'm not a fan of the Liberal Party at the moment. But if they were to win the election I would respect the vote and expect that the party that I voted for would do the same.

I agree that Harper should have found an alternative to proroguing Parliament. But I also think that he was backed into a corner and, personally, I would have rather had him do that then let the coalition happen. Not because I voted Conservative, but because I respect the democratic system and I don't believe that coalitions have any place in that system.

And, frankly, if the Liberals did win a minority gov't this time around, I wouldn't put it past Harper to do the exact same thing (front a coalition). At this point I don't think that any of the leaders have the country's best interests at heart. They are all posturing for their own agendas.

Elizabeth May had a great line in her speech yesterday..."so many elections, so little democracy".

Interesting. I don't understand how people can reconcile the belief a coalition is not democratic with belief that a party that almost 70% of the country voted against should govern with any moral authority. If anything, a purer representation of the majority of voters would be more democratic..

It's a bizarre system, but I'd have no problem with it under any government. Didn't care when Harper tried it in 2004, didn't care when Dion tried it a few years ago. Minority governments don't have permission to rule as if they have a majority. Threat of coalition government is one of the consequences of failing to accept that, IMO.

If people are so against coalition governments, we should do away with a few parties. I have a feeling that politics will evolve such that minorities and coalitions will become the new reality in Canada as it has in other countries.

I'm one of the people who think that coalition is a bad word...not a scary word...but a bad word. IMO a coalition is not democratic. The people vote for who they want to run the country. When there is a minority gov't and a coalition takes over, this is not how the country voted for the gov't to be run (yes, it can be argued that collectively the country voted for the coalition members, but that's not the same thing IMO as a coalition is not a party and not what was voted for). I don't think that a coalition respects the democratic voting system.
....

This is illogical. Of course, it's specifically true that neither you nor anybody else would have voted for the coalition. People complain about partisan politics but when a couple of parties decide to put aside there differences and cooperate for the good of the country, then it's "undemocratic"; That's baloney.

If, (hypothetically), the Liberals pulled off a majority, you wouldn't have voted for that either, so where's the issue. The Conservatives (or whoever) could win a majority with less than 40% of the popular vote: how can it be said that this is more democratic than a coalition which, collectively, did represent a majority?

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

...
I agree that Harper should have found an alternative to proroguing Parliament. But I also think that he was backed into a corner and, personally, I would have rather had him do that then let the coalition happen. Not because I voted Conservative, but because I respect the democratic system and I don't believe that coalitions have any place in that system.
....

Well, you are simply wrong about that: there are plenty of bona fide democracies where coalitions are routine and quite a few where good governance typically happens.

In the circumstance of a Liberal majority, I likely would have voted for my Liberal candidate, but that doesn't mean what I wanted a Liberal government -- only that I wanted a Conservative government even less.

Personally I would prefer "proportional representation" to the "first past the post system" we have now. Under a p/r system coalitions would be typical, but I would support that system precisely because it is more democratic.

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

...
And, frankly, if the Liberals did win a minority gov't this time around, I wouldn't put it past Harper to do the exact same thing (front a coalition). At this point I don't think that any of the leaders have the country's best interests at heart. They are all posturing for their own agendas.
....

At least we agree on this.

Originally Posted by ForeverAutumn

...
Elizabeth May had a great line in her speech yesterday..."so many elections, so little democracy".

An awful lot of people are polarized firmly for or against the coalition concept. Can't really say there's a right or wrong. Only what's legal and what's not. You'd have to be living in a cave to deny that that the majority of Canadians were opposed to any coalition involving the BQ. This guy included.

Reality is there's the democracy we have written in the constitution, and the democracy the public believes it has at the grassroots level. I believe the latter is more important, certainly from a strategic standpoint for the parties.

I personally struggle with the whole minority government concept. Not a big fan of more than 2 parties. Even though I can't logically justify any rule that restricts the rights of citizens to form an additional party. In principle it's great, in practice, it kind of sucks, so I don't like it.